<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Mashable - The Social Media Guide - Latest Comments in 2007/10/26/senators-net-neutrality/</title><link>http://mashable.disqus.com/</link><description>Internet and Technology News - Mashable is the world’s largest blog focused exclusively on Web 2.0 and Social Networking news. With more than 5 million monthly pageviews, Mashable is the most prolific blog reviewing new Web sites and services, publishing breaking news on what’s new on the web.</description><atom:link href="https://mashable.disqus.com/thread_2409/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:23:37 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: 2007/10/26/senators-net-neutrality/</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/10/26/senators-net-neutrality/#comment-5983114</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I agree that something needs to be done to make ISPs immune to what their customers are doing online. Net neutrality is important, but it's putting ISPs in a really bad position. It's kind of impossible for them to do much short of blocking certain sites that might be used for illegal activity, since specific monitoring and active blocking of certain users doing certain things takes a lot more infrastructure than many people realize, especially when you have millions of users.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Cameron Chapman</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:23:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 2007/10/26/senators-net-neutrality/</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/10/26/senators-net-neutrality/#comment-5983113</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hey, do you really know of any organizations -- or individuals -- that are "pro-abortion"?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I bet not.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I bet you know of some that are pro-reproductive rights, though.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or even pro-abortion-RIGHTS.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">sbpoet</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 17:22:15 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: 2007/10/26/senators-net-neutrality/</title><link>http://mashable.com/2007/10/26/senators-net-neutrality/#comment-5983112</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The reason Comcast blocked p2p is because they can be held accountable for illegal file sharing. So basically this law or whatever would force internet providers to allow anything on their networks, BUT they could still be sued for illegal file sharing. From a business perspective, that makes no sense, it's double edged.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If internet providers were protected from being sued, they would have no reason to block content. The problem is not internet providers, the problem is DMCA.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">CountRob</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:46:17 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>